Letter

Bad reasoning, bad conclusions

The letters on “global warming” have been short on fact, and long on fallacious arguments and bad reasoning. Those who would have me and every other person on Earth change our way of life owe us better. If you want to convince me, you have to show me data and methods, not just conclusions.

The major “argument” from supporters of the theory is that 97 percent of climate scientists agree. This is the “argument from authority.” It isn’t a proof of any theory. A valid theory has to stand up to review from anyone. “Pal review” by fellow “climate scientists” who make a habit of copying each other’s articles, mistakes and all, doesn’t cut it.

Until the data from East Anglia was leaked (after freedom of information requests were stonewalled), we had no way to see the data behind the “scientists’” conclusions. I’ve looked at the leaked data; my conclusion is that no one could form a valid conclusion either for or against man-made global warming from that data. It’s online, look for yourself. Then ask yourself why did it take a leak for that (or any other) data to see the light of day?

“A priori” reasoning: This is where one has a conclusion and then shops for a set of “facts” to confirm it. They came up with a “computer model” that showed the Earth getting warmer. The “model” predicted a rapid warming “hockey stick” starting several years ago. Instead the Earth has gotten cooler over those years. The fact that their model was wrong is proof that it’s broken. Why would one trust a broken model even after it’s tweaked to conform to conflicting new data?

If the world is to be convinced, the only way is to start over without any preconceived conclusions. The data and conclusions have to fit all the facts (including the medieval climate anomaly). The scientists have to be reputable, excluding any who have concealed data or any who have published without checking all of their facts/data. We’re waiting...